Posted by walto_clown on December 6, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It proved an interesting dilemma for the University's leadership:

--Fight to the bitter end for that in which you belive, regardless of the cost/impact

or

--Take your chances in the uninformed court of public opinion, cut and run, and begin to heal.

It's a tough call. Sometimes, when I'm acting particularly belligerently to make a point, someone will ask me if I'd "rather be right or rather be happy". To me there's no difference.

Clearly to CU there is. The University's leadership has chosen "happiness".

Posted by phatmack on December 6, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on GB!

I have a hard time believing the attorneys when they say: "the settlement would not have gone through without the non-monetary agreements." I really wish we could prove that. Oh well... I guess.

Posted by NorCalLovesDaBuffs on December 6, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lisa Simpson will "blow" all that money on QVC jewelry and home exercise equipment within 6-months. God bless Gary Barnett for coming out against the injustice of her being rewarded for her lies.

Posted by bzainthemd on December 6, 2007 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gents,
I agree with what you all said. And as a Buff, it is hard to see CU pay off these people to make this rediculous law suit go away. But it had to be done. That said, I would not say that Lisa Simpson "lied". She may have been asaulted that night. If she did, I really feel sorry for her.

However, what makes me sick about her is that when she knew she couldn't get anyone convicted for her asault in criminal court, she went after CU's money in the name of the institution of CU "enabling a culture of promoting sexual asaults on women". That is rediculous. If she were sincere about her settlement statements, she'd donate all that money back to CU to help enforce these agreements that she just "forced". But we all know she's full of it, so I hope she enjoys her money and just goes away.

Posted by Ralphie2 on December 6, 2007 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen, Gary!!!

Posted by noslackbc on December 6, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Settlement a sad commentary on todays culture. It is extortion. Manufactured and prompted by a fee driven legal community, filed by minions of the same order pursuing career promotion. Prostitution takes many public forms. How many can you count in this incident, devoid of facts and media driven?

Honor is still an admirable charater trait. Thanks Coach Barnett, your conduct and values far out shine those demonstrated by the legal community.

Posted by Ralphie2 on December 6, 2007 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I REALLY RESPECT GARY BARNETT, THE PERSON.

Posted by Saheeb on December 6, 2007 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Paul Vigo, OLB from New Brunswick, NJ just pledged. He's a one-star on Scout and a two-star on Rivals. But, he's got 4.5 speed and is 6'2 220pds. Bet they eventually put him at safety. Hope he brings his teammates Brandon Smith and Marquiss Hamm to Boulder with him!

Posted by bdj36 on December 6, 2007 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I’m just happy that someone (Gary Barnett) has finally stepped up and taken a stand in this ridiculous case. Congratulations Mr. Barnett for standing up for the players, their families, the university and yourself. As for Mr. Brown, he is tantamount to a corporate CEO (or should we go with politician) that is most interested in securing a legacy, regardless of cost and collateral damage, upon their exit! So, congratulations to you too Mr. Brown for your legacy – at whatever cost to, most of all, the kids that also put their faith in this university to do them right!

Please remind me again, were we ever close to having charges filed in this case? That's what I thought.

Posted by IAM4CUINIOWA on December 7, 2007 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I too, respect Gary Barnett, the person, and the coach. Things just got a little out of control, and it was time for a change. GB is not a bad guy, and did a fine job while he was at CU. But once all that crap got rolling, there was no stopping it. CU got run thru the mill for doing nothing wrong. A few individuals may have, but they were never charged.
I guess it is time to let this all go now and move on. But man, it's tough to do, when someone (lawyers)just made a killing off the University.
Back to Football guys! Go Buffs!! Roll the Tide!

Posted by reallifeshocker on December 8, 2007 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the settlement is, when considered out of the context of the altered "present reality", in this country, really quite silly. this is another of a seemingly endless list of ridiculous lawsuits promoted by a legal system out-of-control, everyone, except the attorneys, lose. they "milk it" until dry, then move on to new projects to pillage, people and institutions to destroy. the ambulance-chasers will eventually rule our country.

Posted by rswright on December 8, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear reallifeshocker:

If a woman believes she has been raped and that CU contributed to that event by fostering a culture which allowed rape, what is ridiculous about seeking damages and changes in CU's policies? You might think this scenario is ridiculous but the Court of Appeals didn't.

Or maybe you feel it was ridiculous because the facts of the allegation were untrue. A ridiculous lawsuit was the one filed by the DA in the Duke case. With every chance to prove this case was like the Duke case or that the facts were untrue not only was it unable to do so, it decided to buy its peace.What would really be ridiculous is that CU would not settle after suffering a reversal and reinstatement of the case by the Court of Appeals. Reinstatement meant was CU could suffer the possibility of a judgement by which a jury found CU fostered a culture in which rape of students was allowed. Which parent would want to pay $40,000.00 CU for the privilege of attending a school which not only to do nothing to protect their kid but as found by a federal jury, fostered a culture in which raping a student was allowed. It is reasonable to see that if CU suffered such a judgment it would lose its students in droves and suffer a decreas in enrollment for years to come. Student tuition constitutes almost 95% of CU's budget (or maybe you are naive enough to believe the State of COlorado pays the CU budget). Without tuition
CU would not be able to pay its bills.
Facing these consequence not only was this settlement not ridiculous it was worth every dollar of the 2.8 million it paid.

Legal system out of control? If your daughter believed she had been raped, how is the legal system out of control in allowing her to ask for damages and changes in CU policies? And wouldn't you want an advocate to pursue your claim with expertise and vigor which talents cost money. It appears she filed suit after what she considered a rape,received excellent representation and the case ended with a settlement. Rather than being out of control, is appears the legal system was doing exactly what it was intended to do.

You say that the attorney's milked the case. Where is your proof? If you have any evidence to show that the plaintiff's attorney "milked this case" then show us. From all outward appearances, the attorneys, against strong opposition by CU did a very good job for their client. Show me where they milked the case.

Posted by lkwddadys on December 8, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I, too, respect Barnett, the person, for stepping up for all players and their families, THE University and for himself.

Perhaps we should add soon-to-retire Hank Brown to the list of casualties of the 'recruiting scandal that wouldn't have occurred' except for Boulder's Mary Keenan, the RMNew's Dave Kreiger, the DenPost's Mark Kizla, and of course, the State's then governor Bill Owens and plaintiff's attorney Blaine Kerr the husband of OUR University's regent, and place-kicker Katie Hnida. It would be nice if each of these self-promoting accusers would publicly acknowledge their specious roles in exacting a $2.8 million settlement.

And, rswright, there was insufficient evidence for even Mary Keenan to file charges of rape. More importantly (thanks to Gary Barnett, Hank Brown and Brown's predecessor), the University changed its culture and its recruiting policies long before the settlement. I think as do you that the legal system is not out of control; but must question the unsupported assertion that THE University would "lose its students in droves. . ." because it . . . fostered a culture in which raping a student was allowed."

Posted by rswright on December 9, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What part of this logic is untrue?
1. The plaintiffs alleged that CU fostered a culture in which raping a student was allowed.
2. If a jury ruled against CU on this allegation there would be a judgment of record that the allegation was true.
3. This judgment against CU would be spread nationwide by the media.
4. CU is in competition with other universities nationwide for out of state students.
5.If there was a judgment that the allegation was true, between CU and numerous schools, (generally alike in all other respects)except that a federaL jury found that CU fostered a culture in which raping of a student was allowed, very few parents would allow their children to attend CU. (Think of the guilt if your child was raped at CU and you had been warned).
4. The main source of revenue for CU is student Student tuition with out of staters contributing 75% of CU's budget.
5. Without this income CU would face bankrutcy.
6. You know the reason why the Regents settled.

P.S. Stop blaming everyone else. Ask yourself, if these allegations were untrue why couldn't CU prove it, i.e. The Duke rape case. CU has had three years to prove the allegations were untrue, couldn't and didn't want to face the possibility of a judgment that they were true. End of case, hopefully.

Posted by lkwddadys on December 12, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hank Brown's settlement with a plaintiff who "believed she had been raped" was timely and undoubtedly in the best interests of THE University. More importantly, perhaps, by not trying the case in court, Brown's decision to monetarily compensate the plaintiff keeps other wannabe rape victims, at other schools, from citing as precedent the Title IX provision against gender discrimination should the court have ruled against OUR University with respect to fostering an environment that led to the plaintiff's alleged assault. That " . . . CU fostered a culture . . ." is an issue that is not legally resolved.

The reason for the previous post was not to blame 'everyone else", but to point out the 2007 settlement would not have been a matter with which Brown needed to become involved if the self-promoters had publicly supported and encouraged negotiations with the plaintiff by the previous regime. Notwithstanding the illogic of CU facing bankruptcy " . . . If a jury ruled against CU on this allegation . . .", THE University's accusers failure now to acknowledge their fundamental errors in reasoning in 2002, which abetted the recent monetary settlement, is overwhelming.

Posted by rswright on December 13, 2007 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Talk about fuzzy thinking. That second sentence above makes no sense let alone being impossible to read. That Brown settled the case for any other reason than to avoid a judgment on the basis of the allegations of the complaint,namely, that CU fostered a culture in which these acts were allowed is without any evidence to support it. Once again blame for the settlement is being credited to every fact other than CU might be found liable for fostering that type of culture. It had nothing to do with Title IX, nor was Title IX even mentioned in the Barnett article. The settlement was in CU's best interest because it avoided the possibility of a judgment and the damage to CU would have been horrendous on the issue alleged in the Complaint. Stop blaming every other fact other than CU could have been held responsible for this rape and bought its peace.

Next.The theory, stated above, is that Hank Brown became involved only because self promotors did not publicly support negotiations.
The reason Hank Brown was involved is because he was President when the Court of Appeals reinatated the case and trial was looming. He had the option of allowing the case to go to trial or settle and he chose to settle. End of case.

P.S. On bankruptcy; if you think the State of Colorado was going to support the University if CU was found by a federal jury to allow a culture in which the raping of a student was allowed think again. CU has had enough bad press and this would be the capper. Freshmen would not show up if
CU suffered this type of judgment.
The State contributes only 7% of CU's budget now. How much would it contribute if CU was found to foster a culture in which raping of its students was allowed. Caught between lack of students and lack of state support, CU would not have enough money to pay its bills, that is, bankruptcy.